Kolkata Court January 1925 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Bejoy Chand Mahatab Vs. Kali Prasanna Seal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal752,87Ind.Cas.708
Suhrawardy, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was one for ejectment after service of notice to quit on the defendants. The Court of first instance found that the defendants were permanent tenure-holders and in that view dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff appealed and the lower Appellate Court was invited by both the parties to try the propriety and legality of the service of notice before going into the question of the status of the defendants. The learned Subordinate Judge found that the notices were not duly served and dismissed the suit on that ground.2. The plaintiff has appealed to this Court and the only ground taken before us is that in the circumstances of this case it should have been held that the notices-were legally served. On this point three grounds were taken before the lower Appellate Court. The first is that the defendant No. 1 was the Karta of the joint; family and the service of notice on him was sufficient in respect of all the members of the ...
RahimuddIn Sarkar and ors. Vs. Umesh Chandra Khasnabish
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal115,87Ind.Cas.694
Chakravarti, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants and arises out of a suit for possession brought by the plaintiff under the following circumstances. The plaintiff's case was that the lands in dispute belonged to his zemindari which after partition amongst his co-sharers fell to his exclusive share in the year 1325. The lands according to the plaintiff belonged to Mouza Lakshmipur and were held by a Kotwal as chakran lands and no rent was paid by him as he held them as service tenure. But the plaintiff further alleged that the chakran lands were resumed by an arrangement with the Kotwal who was to be paid his wages in cash and not by the profits of the lands as had been the arrangement' before the lands were resumed. The defendants were according to the plaintiff trespassers on the land although the plaintiff added that the defendants were in possession under same Settlement from the kotwal. The defence of the defendants was that the lands were never held by the kotwal in lieu of s...
Gurudas Saha Vs. Shaikh Hira Gazi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1925
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.740
1. The facts of the case out of which this second appeal has arisen are these. The present appellant in execution of a mortgage-decree sought to put to sale the raiyati holding of the judgment-debtor respondent. The judgment-debtor objected to the sale on two grounds firstly, that the holding could not be sold as the raiyati holding was not transferable without the landlord's consent; and secondly, that being an agriculturist by occupation he was entitled to the protection accorded by Section 60, C. P.C. The First Court decided both these points against the judgment-debtor respondent. In appeal the learned Subordinate Judge held that as the attaching decree-holder was not the landlord and as there was no evidence to show that the holding was transferable by custom or usage and as the consent of the landlord was not alleged to have been obtained, the decree-holder was not entitled to put to sale the raiyati holding of the judgment-debtor respondent. In this view of the case he held that...
Jessarat and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal729,87Ind.Cas.833
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by nine persons, Chota Jessarat, Baro Jessarat, Tazer, Gendla, Mazarulla Mistri, Kasim, Genda Fakir, Mohorulla and Amanulla Gachua, who were tried by the Sessions Judge of Rangpur with the aid of a jury. The jury brought in a unanimous verdict of guilty against all the accused under Sections 147 and 366, I.P.C., and against Chota Jessarat, Tazer, Gendla Kasim, Genda Fakir and Mohorulla under Section 457, I.P.C., and against Baro Jessarat Mazarulla Mistri and Amanulla Gachua under Section 457/149, I.P.C. The learned Judge agreeing with and accepting the said verdict convicted the accused in respect of the offences of which they were found guilty by the jury, and sentenced them only under Section 336, I.P.C., the accused Chota Jessarat, Tazer and Gendla being each sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years, and the accused Baro Jessarat, Mazarulla Mistri, Kasim, Ganda Fakir, Mohoruila and Amanulla Gachua being each sentenced to und...
Abdul Rahim and ors. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal926
1. The three appellants before us and one Abdul Latif were dried before (she Additional Sessions Judge of Backargunj and a Jury on various charges. The committing Magistrate framed the following charges, against Abdul Rahim, Abdul Latif and Saripali Khan, first, with having committed muder by causing the death of Mahomed Sikdar punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and secondly that they were member; of a criminal conspiracy to commit this murder, an offence punishable under Section 102 B of the Indian Penal Code. Aiman Bibi was charged with having been member of the criminal conspiracy with the other three accused be commit murder by causing the death of her husband Mahomed Sikdar, an offence punishable under Section 120B, Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge amended the charges. He struck out the name of Saripali Khan from the charge that had been framed against him jointly with Abdul Rahim and Abdul Latif. The two remaining accused were charged with conspiring tog...
Sourendra Nath Mitra and anr. Vs. Jatindra Nath Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal990,87Ind.Cas.737
Suhrawardy, J.1. This Rule was issued on the ground that the plaint doss not disclose a cause of action and, there-fore, the Court below oughts to have dismissed the application of the opposite party for leave to sue in forma pauperis. The plaintiffs' ancestors mortgaged certain properties and in execution of the decree on the mortgage the mortgaged pro-parties were purchased by the predecessors-in-interest of the defendants. An application was made by the mortgagors to have the sale set aside under Section 244 of the old Civil Procedure Coda, which was dismissed. The present suit is brought in respect of certain subordinate tenures to the taluk which according to the plaintiffs ware never mortgaged. The plaintiffs' case is that the property that was mortgaged and sold was the taluk and not the subordinate tenures. The only question, therefore, that I am asked to look into is if the plaint in this case discloses a cause of action under Order XXXIII, Rule 5. It is not necessary for me t...
Emperor Vs. Jitendra Nath Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal902
C.C. Ghose, J.1. Two persons have been brought up before me for trial on various charges. Before the charges could be read out to the prisoners in the dock, learned Counsel for one of them, namely, Jitendra Nath Bose, submitted the following matters for my consideration. It appears that the prisoner, Jitendra Nath Bose, was indicted before this Court some time in December 1920, along with another person named Haridas Mullick, who is now the other prisoner in the dock. Haridss Mullick was then an absconder, and the then Advocate-General of Bengal, on behalf of the King-Emperor, informed this Court that he would not further prosecute the said Jitendra Nath Bose on the charges, which had been framed, and he prayed that, under Section 333 of the Coda of Criminal Procedure, all further proceedings against the said Jitendra Nath Bose might be stayed upon the said charges. Thereupon the learned Judge, then presiding at the Criminal Sessions in this Court, passed an order bo the effect that al...
Official Trustee of Bengal Vs. Sagar Paik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1011
Suhrawardy, J.1. This is a suit for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of 4-annas share of the plaintiff in the holding. The rent is claimed at Rs. 54-11-7 for the 16-annas share; but the Record-of-Rights shows the jama at Rs. 36-6-7. Both the Courts below have agreed in dismissing the plaintiff's suit on the finding that the plaintiff had failed to prove the jama as alleged by him. The plaintiff produced neither the collection papers nor any other evidence in proof of realisation of rent at the rate claimed by him; but he has simply relied upon a certain decree passed in 1895, in a rent-suit against the present respondent on confession. A copy of the decree in that suit has been filed in this case which shows that the amount claimed was decreed on confession by the defendant. The terms of the compromise have not been put in. The decree itself does not prove as to what the defendant admitted. As it stands the admission is only in respect of the amount claimed in that suit. It canno...
Kapil Mandal and ors. Vs. Rabbani Sheikh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1039
1. The eighteen petitioners before us have all been convicted of rioting and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 each. The first petitioner has also been convicted of voluntarily causing grievous hurt and sentenced to two months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50. Three other petitioners have also been convicted of voluntarily causing simple hurt and sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment each. All the petitioners have also been bound down to keep the peace under Section 106, Criminal Procedure Code.2. This rule has been granted on two grounds. The first relates to the order under Section 106, Criminal Procedure Code. It is contended that though the Courts below had legal power to pass such an order they did not exercise their discretion properly having regard to the facts of the case. In our opinion the facts of the case are such that they fully justify this order.3. The second ground on which this rule was issued is that separate sentences upon four of the petitioners ...
Emperor Vs. Jitendra Nath Boss
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1925
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal590
Ghose, J.1. Two persons have been brought up before me for trial on various charges. Before the charges; could be read oat to the prisoners in the dock, learned Counsel for one of them, namely, Jitendra Nath Bose, submitted the following matters for my consideration. It appears that the prisoner, Jitendra Nath Bose, was indicted before this Court some time in December 1920, along with another person named Haridas Mullick, who is now the other prisoner in the dock. Haridas Mullick was then an absconder, and the the Advocate-General of Bengal, on behalf of the King-Emperor, informed this Court that he would not further prosecute the said Jitendra Nath Bose on the charges which had been framed, and lie prayed that, under Section 333 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, all further proceedings against the said Jitendra Nath Bose might be stayed upon the said charges. Thereupon the learned Judge, then presiding at the Criminal Sessions in this Court, passed an order to the effect that all pro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »